Canadian police: 10 dead, 15 injured from stabbings

Because you're a poor shot?

 

See underlined section. Nowhere in any of my posts did I state that being unarmed was preferable. My argument instead instead matches your second underlined statement i.e. that its part of fairly complex equation with multiple variables.

In the US being armed is a choice. You either do it or don't. But there no direct linear relationship between doing so and your personal safety or for that matter the safety of anyone else. Finally my, original involvement in this thread only came about because of a statement to the effect that if Canada's gun laws had been different the outcome would have been different.

My whole argument? Given the remote rural location, choice of weapon, the existence of the gap, the fact there were multiple attackers who knew some if not all of the victims and the widely disbursed nature of the attacks? A firearm in all probability have made little if any difference. In fact even the US such an attack would have a high chance of succeeding. We are after all talking about a very specific set of circumstances.

But one fact remains, if someone seriously means you harm and they can close the distance before you become aware of it, armed or not you are in serious trouble - in most circumstances.

 

Suspect who allegedly killed 10 in Canada stabbings taken into custody (msn.com)
C

At least they captured one of the two brothers and they can bring him to justice. It's a shame that one had to die. It's also a shame that ten people had to die for no reason. Handguns may be made for killing and good for nothing else. Guns are not supposed to solve problems. Guns are not supposed to be used in the wrong hands and we don't know what hands will have guns and how they will be used. It's hard to judge who is dangerous and who isn't. That's all I'll say on this matter for now.

The ten that were stabbed in Canada. it was for no good reason that I can see.

 

you should Google Tyson fury, he's a fighter not a weakling that carries guns

 

So, “weak” women and people who aren’t mma enthusiasts shouldn’t have protection. That’s how you sound.

It’s not a good look, man I wouldn’t lead with that.

 

I went back and read through the posts. I didn't see anyone suggest any sort of definitive outcome from having a readily available firearm.

No one advanced a definite positive outcome. You provided that argument yourself.

At most it was "could have".

The widely dispersed attacks over 6 hours might have meant that the first few were at risk, but people who already knew about the attacks could certainly have had a much better outcome than the first few people attacked.

Even if you're ambushed with a knife, and admittedly I didn't see the weapon, you're not going to die fast in most cases. Having a gun on you might have meant that one of the first few people attacked, even if they had taken a mortal wound, might still have been able to shoot their attacker(s).

There's at least one other fact here: being armed with a firearm gives you a better chance when attacked than not having one at all.

Unfortunately these victims live in a country where having their guns out, ready, and on their persons for self defense purposes means jail time.

They had to choose between getting arrested for carrying a weapon for self defense, or getting killed by the men roaming around attacking people with knives for 6 hours.

All details in this scenario being the same, unarmed vs armed, I know which one I would choose.

 

How many of his boxing matches were to the death?

 

Hes Irish. Not American, he believes in God, not Satan. He always thanks god after his fights

 

That didn't answer the question at all.

 

I was this one on page one 'I wonder if Canadians are re-thinking their government's gun policies.'

i.e. if the policies were different the outcome would have been different. My argument? As stated previously, given the specific scenario and the existence of the gap. Any change in policy would have been highly unlikely to make a difference.

Virtually anyone one would (with the benefit of hindsight). But I would argue situational awareness is even more important.

 

Bring forth the knife buy backs maybe.

I mean people clearly can't be trusted with knives either. Or matches.

 

Here we go:

 

I don't think anyone argued that situational awareness wasn't extremely important. Pretty sure I mentioned that myself today.

My problem here is that you're advancing arguments that no one else even mentioned.

No one said situational awareness wasn't important.

No one said having a gun was a sure win.

What we said is that it's preferable to the alternative of being unarmed.

 

Rammed his vehicle AND pointed a bunch of guns at him.

They left out that part.

 

In the US? Quite likely, because the probably of a gun on gun confrontation is so much higher. Ironically as legally interpreted the right to bear arms almost guarantees that. In other countries where the likelihood of an armed confrontation (even knife attack is rare) good situational awareness would IMO probably trump a weapon.

For got to add, if I lived in another relatively lawless country with high rates of violence i.e. Guatemala? That choice might well change. It just doesn't where I live.

 

Good grief. Here you go again with the imaginary arguments.

You go into your attack with situational awareness and unarmed.

I'll go into mine with situational awareness and a firearm.

Good luck.

 

Its not an argument its a clarification. My decision would be based on a risk analysis. Owning a firearm is a responsibility and imposes a duty of care, to train with it regularly, practice safe handling in public and storage when not carried etc to avoid alcohol when carrying etc. Nothing crushingly onerous but there is an expense involved.

Also why is this an 'attack'? And where have I attacked your personal decision to carry? If I may, there's no need to be so defensive. In my circumstances, where I live and given my lifestyle etc do I or do I not need to carry a firearm for self defense, and do the obligations involved outweigh the benefits? Answer: Yes or No. In my case its no. Your answer is obviously 'yes'. Point being the the there's no 'universal truth' involved.

 

Canada is not at all civilized! For over hundred years their holiest of the holy catholic priests have abused and tortured to death the helpless Indigenous children while the government looked away and the people didn't know!!!

The two murderers were brothers who came from a broken and abusive home on a native reserve.
They killed and wounded their own Native people!
Both had been in trouble with the law before. One brother had already killed someone and was actually on parole since May, breaking his parole conditions.

After the massacre and gathering up of the dead and wounded, the younger brother was found dead in the grass with wounds that were not self inflicted!
The older brother fled and has not yet been caught.

That's the story in a nut shell.

Thank God, I did a quick checking before posting!! The RCMP just caught the older brother on Hwy 11:
https://thestarphoenix.com/news/cri...connected-to-pursuit-for-myles-sanderson-rcmp

 

"Civilization" is a thin veneer on an ocean of chaos we pretend doesn't exist. Even that can only exist inside a large ring of big weapons.

Did the brother kill his brother or will some of the victims be going to jail for defending themselves with weapons?

 

No, it's not a clarification, it's an either/or argument that presumes having a firearm means you're not using self awareness.

My reference to "attack" was in regards to a situation where both of us may be in a dangerous situation. My point was that having a firearm and having situational awareness are not mutually exclusive.

In the case of the 10 people stabbed to death, did they live in a place with a high homicide rate? No? Do you think they "felt" safe where they lived? Probably.

Some of the worst violent crimes in this country happened in "safe" places.

A lot of people felt safe right before they get murdered I'm sure.

Luckily I don't base my decisions on my feelings.

 

are you serious-when I was in college, weed was everywhere. When I was in Law and grad school, weed was everywhere. At a party for the Ivy Squash team that I coached, one of the seniors-a real straight kid-was given a bong as a joke. One of the other guys said "too bad no-one has any reefer". within 5 minutes there was a ton of the stuff

 

why don't the effete uber-urban masters of decorum come and take them away.

 

That's so incredibly stupid that I cannot stop laughing. I am 63. I have a black belt,I have extensive training with sticks knives, guns etc. I have no illusions about beating a 23 year old prison hardened thug unarmed in a street fight. People like you want thugs to rule the world. Guns have enabled older wiser people to keep order

 

He's incorrect. Canadians know Mr. Trudeau is prone to propagandizing.

 

Err, firstly a lot of people don't 'feel' safe and get murdered? Your point? Secondly please don't misrepresent my statements. I clearly used the words 'risk assessment' when deciding to make a decision re: carrying/not carrying a firearm. At no point did I use the world 'feelings'. The two concepts are polar opposites.